Laserfiche WebLink
DEC 51979 <br />BOOK 42�PAC'E 226 <br />NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING WERE SENT TO GEORGE R. AND <br />DOROTHY L. CHILDERS AND DENNIS L. AND RONEE KING BY THE CLERK <br />OF CIRCUIT COURT AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 125.66. SAID <br />NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. <br />PLANNING STAFF MEMBER WENDY LANCASTER INFORMED THE BOARD <br />THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE <br />INTO 2-1/2 ACRE LOTS CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES ON THE SOUTH <br />SIDE OF KELLY ROAD EAST OF KINGS HIGHWAY. SHE STATED THAT THE GROVE <br />IS NEGLECTED AND IS NOT PRESENTLY PRODUCING, BUT IT IS CAPABLE OF <br />PRODUCING. THERE ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE PROPERTY. <br />THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND IS IN OLD GROVES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA <br />IS IN AGRICULTURAL USE. THE PRESENT ZONING WOULD PERMIT 4 RESIDENCES <br />ON THE PROPERTY WHILE 20 WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER R -1E ZONING. <br />Miss LANCASTER CONTINUED THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON <br />THE FOLLOWING REASONS: <br />1. This rezoning would constitute spot zoning relative to the <br />immense agricultural district surrounding it. <br />2. The preservation of prime agricultural land is essential to <br />the economic base of Indian River County. <br />3. Residential zoning would be premature at this time because <br />pressure for urbanization is non-existent in -this region <br />of the county. <br />4. The possibility to construct 2 additional homes on this parcel <br />currently exists under the agricultural zoning. <br />MISS LANCASTER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING <br />COMMISSION VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING 2 TO 1. <br />GEORGE AND DOROTHY CHILDERS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE <br />A PRESENTATION FOR THEMSELVES AND THE KINGS. MRS. CHILDERS INFORMED <br />THE BOARD THAT THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1974, AT WHICH TIME <br />THE FRUIT TREES WERE SEVERELY PRUNED, AND THEY ALLOWED THREE YEARS <br />FOR REVITALIZATION. SHE REVIEWED THEIR PRODUCTION ANALYSIS WHICH <br />SHOWS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN A PROFITABLE INVESTMENT; AND THEY, IN <br />FACT, HAD A NET LOSS OF $22,000. SHE DISCUSSED FREEZE DAMAGE, AND <br />